Jack The Ripper Forums  - Ripperology For The 21st Century  

Go Back   Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century > Persons Of Interest or Actual Suspects

Persons Of Interest or Actual Suspects To date, over one hundred have been proposed...many are considered...but only one [ or was it two? ] was Jack The Ripper.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 3rd, 2017, 03:45 PM   #31
Anna Morris
Registered User
 
Anna Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Idaho, USA
Posts: 3,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Banks View Post
Hi Anna

Thanks for the info.

I always scent a little desperation when I hear someone, who is promoting a suspect, say something like : 'and Jack would probably have travelled down Berner Street on the way to his Great Uncle Bill's house.' As if it proves anything.

Regards

Michael
At least part of the argument is that the C-5 were killed along the route CL would take when he walked to work. But how many other thousands took the same routes to get to work. It was an overcrowded slum area; the massive population alone makes statistics pointing to one individual difficult.

One thing I have learned from involvement in forums and other research is that there are some great patterns pointing to suspects in a number of cases yet they may all work out to coincidences for lack of a better term. I well remember days of buying the latest Ripper suspect book and getting high on the idea that THIS latest one must surely have been JtR. (Then I purchased books on some of the weaker suggestions and lost interest in suspects.)

In modern times we can Look at Steve Hodel who claims his father was the Black Dahlia killer. Hodel links his father to a bunch of murders and the Zodiac murders. I understand his reasoning and see the pattern but the other side of the argument could be that his father was a pervert creep who never killed anyone.

I think it all boils down to think, research, seek proof, keep eyes wide open. Then think about what would be ultimate proof and hope someone finds and shares an old relic or record from his attic.
__________________
If the shawl doesn't fit, you must acquit.~~Henry Flower, Casebook post
Anna Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2017, 04:10 PM   #32
Michael Banks
Registered User
 
Michael Banks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: West Midlands, Uk
Posts: 422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna Morris View Post
At least part of the argument is that the C-5 were killed along the route CL would take when he walked to work. But how many other thousands took the same routes to get to work. It was an overcrowded slum area; the massive population alone makes statistics pointing to one individual difficult.

One thing I have learned from involvement in forums and other research is that there are some great patterns pointing to suspects in a number of cases yet they may all work out to coincidences for lack of a better term. I well remember days of buying the latest Ripper suspect book and getting high on the idea that THIS latest one must surely have been JtR. (Then I purchased books on some of the weaker suggestions and lost interest in suspects.)

In modern times we can Look at Steve Hodel who claims his father was the Black Dahlia killer. Hodel links his father to a bunch of murders and the Zodiac murders. I understand his reasoning and see the pattern but the other side of the argument could be that his father was a pervert creep who never killed anyone.

I think it all boils down to think, research, seek proof, keep eyes wide open. Then think about what would be ultimate proof and hope someone finds and shares an old relic or record from his attic.
What I don't understand Anna is why someone would suggest that CL took different routes to work? Most take exactly the same one every day.

Patterns and coincidences are there waiting to be found and some often seem too good to be true. Until we look into them a little deeper. I think that in the case of CL the impression is unavoidable (for me) that the case against him is built on sand. I'll buy the book though.

I had a look on a Zodiac forum a couple of weeks ago just out of curiosity. I've only read 3 books on the subject but I was surprised at the number of suspects and the amounts of posters and threads. Some lively debate on there too. The Hodel book was one of the ones that I've read along with the Graysmith one and one other.

Regards

Michael
Michael Banks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2017, 12:53 PM   #33
Caroline Brown
Author
 
Caroline Brown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Banks View Post
Firstly he would have had to find a victim. There were many prostitues in the area as we all know but at 3.30 in the morning they would hardly have been queueing up in the street. Most would have been asleep or looking for a place to sleep. It might have taken CL 30 or 40 minutes to find a victim. At the very least he couldn't have expected to bump into one in Bucks Row on his route to work! They would then have had to find a spot. Prostitutes knew all the spots so this shouldn't have taken long. But a bit of unwelcome attention from a Constable might have extended the time a little.
Good idea for a thread, Michael. I haven't read any of the responses yet, so the observations I make below may already have been made by others.

1) Assuming CL had walked along Buck's Row to get to work on previous occasions, he would have known if it was likely to be deserted at that time. We know it wasn't on the morning in question because very shortly after CL is meant to have been committing the murder, another carman came along the same street in the same direction, and shortly after the pair went to alert a policeman, a third man, PC Neil, came along the same street on his beat and found the victim.

While someone unfamiliar with the comings and goings might well have judged Buck's Row quiet enough for a spot of murder and mutilation, particularly if Polly Nichols considered it quiet enough for "business", how confident could CL have been that he wouldn't be caught in the act by the next man to come that way, be it a workman, a beat copper or anyone else? In short, he shouldn't have been confident at all because the theory depends on him being very nearly caught in the act by Robert Paul. Therefore I find it unlikely that he'd have killed in that location, because how likely was this to have been the first occasion he'd seen anyone in Buck's Row around the time he was going to work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Banks View Post
The so called 'Mizen Scam' is a construct based on no evidence which allows CL to lie, out of earshot of Paul, about whether Nichols was dead or drunk. Thus eliminating the possibility of CL and Paul being detained by Mizen. We know that testimony is contradictory here; as it regularly is in this case. We also know that contractions are meat and drink to the more conspiracy-minded of Ripperologists.
My first point is that the 'scam' wasn't needed in the first place. If CL wanted to avoid a Constable all he need to have done was to say to Paul: 'look, we'll have more chances of finding a copper if you go that way and I go this. Whoever meets a copper tells him about the woman.' CL would have then gone on to work avoiding a Constable. You may say that it might have appeared suspicious if he'd have been questioned later. Well, the chances of him being found, without any information, would have been slim. If he had have been found he would have just said: 'we agreed to split up. I assumed that the other bloke would have found a copper. Besides, the beat copper on Bucks Row would have found her.'
2) I would add here that if Paul had not agreed to split up, but insisted on them staying together, CL could have run into trouble. For all he knew, Paul may have seen more than he was meant to, and was pretending otherwise until he could report the matter to a policeman. But if Paul had agreed to split up, CL could have been fairly certain he had not seen any of the signs of physical violence on the woman that PC Neil was shortly to discover. So if Paul had gone it alone and actually alerted a copper, the worst he could have said was that he thought the woman was dead, but he could not have reported a murder. CL would then have learned from the newspapers how and when the murder had been discovered and reported, so he'd have been well prepared if the police had managed to track him down later. He'd have been able to add that he thought the woman had just been drunk, and certainly hadn't realised she had been murdered, which Paul would have confirmed if and when giving his own account.

We know from what happened that nobody thought it suspicious that both CL and Paul had failed to notice any blood or any of the wounds sustained by Nichols, so CL would have been okay with that story whenever he told it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Banks View Post
For me, nothing suspicious can be seen from the fact that CL gave his name as Cross rather than Lechmere. Research (by David Orsam for one) has shown that it was quite common place at that time for people to use a name other than their birth name. Cross was his Stepfathers name. He used Cross on a census. Yes, Christer Holmgren has found over 100 examples of CL signing documentation as Lechmere. This just shows that early on, someone said to him: 'look Charles, when you sign documents you need to use your birth name.' It seems probable, though we can't prove it, that Cross was the name he used from day to day. He gained no advantage from using Cross at the inquest because, and this really is a killer, he gave his correct address! 22 Doveton Street. The only way that another name could have been seen as suspicious would have been if he'd have said' I'm Fred Smith and I live at 24 Flower and Dean Street.' But he didn't. Maybe he felt that Lechmere sounded a bit 'foreign?'
3) He really did have nothing to gain from calling himself Cross if he was only known as Lechmere at home and work, as the theorists like to argue. That might well have been seen as suspicious at the time, had the police checked and not found a Charles Cross at either address he gave and then had to jump through hoops to find this important witness was actually Charles Lechmere. Similarly, that would have looked odd to his family and workmates if the police had made any such enquiries, or if they had made the connection themselves from what the papers were saying.

"Why was Charlie Lechmere calling himself Cross at that poor woman's inquest?"

No such problem if he was known as Cross anyway.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen
Caroline Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2017, 03:42 PM   #34
Scott Nelson
Schoolyard Bully
 
Scott Nelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Banks View Post
What I don't understand Anna is why someone would suggest that CL took different routes to work? Most take exactly the same one every day.
Cross' further route to work took him along Hanbury Street. The theory could thus account for possible encounters with Nichols and Chapman, but not with the other victims.
Scott Nelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2017, 03:51 PM   #35
Sam Flynn
Owl Catcher
 
Sam Flynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Nelson View Post
Cross' further route to work took him along Hanbury Street. The theory could thus account for possible encounters with Nichols and Chapman, but not with the other victims.
That assumes he was lucky enough to pick them up en route. If, as is frequently the case, streetwalkers hung around the main thoroughfares in order to pick up custom, a serial-killer who patrolled the back-streets wasn't exactly maximising his chances of finding a victim. Indeed, I've argued that Cross's "work-trek" apparently coinciding with some of the murder sites actually militates against his being the Ripper.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen"
(F. Nietzsche)

Sam Flynn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2017, 05:19 PM   #36
Michael Banks
Registered User
 
Michael Banks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: West Midlands, Uk
Posts: 422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caroline Morris View Post
Good idea for a thread, Michael. I haven't read any of the responses yet, so the observations I make below may already have been made by others.

1) Assuming CL had walked along Buck's Row to get to work on previous occasions, he would have known if it was likely to be deserted at that time. We know it wasn't on the morning in question because very shortly after CL is meant to have been committing the murder, another carman came along the same street in the same direction, and shortly after the pair went to alert a policeman, a third man, PC Neil, came along the same street on his beat and found the victim.

While someone unfamiliar with the comings and goings might well have judged Buck's Row quiet enough for a spot of murder and mutilation, particularly if Polly Nichols considered it quiet enough for "business", how confident could CL have been that he wouldn't be caught in the act by the next man to come that way, be it a workman, a beat copper or anyone else? In short, he shouldn't have been confident at all because the theory depends on him being very nearly caught in the act by Robert Paul. Therefore I find it unlikely that he'd have killed in that location, because how likely was this to have been the first occasion he'd seen anyone in Buck's Row around the time he was going to work?



2) I would add here that if Paul had not agreed to split up, but insisted on them staying together, CL could have run into trouble. For all he knew, Paul may have seen more than he was meant to, and was pretending otherwise until he could report the matter to a policeman. But if Paul had agreed to split up, CL could have been fairly certain he had not seen any of the signs of physical violence on the woman that PC Neil was shortly to discover. So if Paul had gone it alone and actually alerted a copper, the worst he could have said was that he thought the woman was dead, but he could not have reported a murder. CL would then have learned from the newspapers how and when the murder had been discovered and reported, so he'd have been well prepared if the police had managed to track him down later. He'd have been able to add that he thought the woman had just been drunk, and certainly hadn't realised she had been murdered, which Paul would have confirmed if and when giving his own account.

We know from what happened that nobody thought it suspicious that both CL and Paul had failed to notice any blood or any of the wounds sustained by Nichols, so CL would have been okay with that story whenever he told it.



3) He really did have nothing to gain from calling himself Cross if he was only known as Lechmere at home and work, as the theorists like to argue. That might well have been seen as suspicious at the time, had the police checked and not found a Charles Cross at either address he gave and then had to jump through hoops to find this important witness was actually Charles Lechmere. Similarly, that would have looked odd to his family and workmates if the police had made any such enquiries, or if they had made the connection themselves from what the papers were saying.

"Why was Charlie Lechmere calling himself Cross at that poor woman's inquest?"

No such problem if he was known as Cross anyway.

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz

Thanks for your thoughts.

I've been debating this for ages with Christer on the Casebook but at the moment I've stepped away because the debate is on the medical evidence and I don't know anywhere near enough to comment usefully.

Others may disagree but I genuinely feel that it's really important to look at the time that CL allowed himself to find a victim, kill her, check for blood, clean up if required and then get to work. He would have had to allow for far longer than the time that he had. He couldn't have banked on being 'lucky' enough to bump into Polly directly on his path to work.
Also as you pointed out, CL used that route every day. There's even a chance that he might have seen Paul before but only as a figure in the distance trudging to work. Or heard his footsteps behind him doing the same. If CL had been a little later any day it's even possible that he might have passed PC Neil on his beat. It's at least likely that CL would have known that Bucks Row was part of a police beat.
Nothing about his actions that morning speak of a man who set out intending to kill and mutilate a prostitute on his way to work.

I do take your point regarding if Paul had refused to split up except that we know that Paul hadn't seen any more than had CL. If he'd have refused to split up events would have continued as they actually did.
My main argument with Christer here is that there is simply no evidence of a 'Mizen Scam.' He uses it to explain differences in testimony in a light that tries to suggest that CL is guilty when more likely explaination are easily available.

I agree that it might have appeared odd if he didn't use the name Cross from day to day but did at the Inquest. Odd but not incriminating. He couldn't possibly have avoided the police by the using Cross as they had his address. At worst it might have caused a little confusion.
As Gary Barnett pointed out to me on here, the Lechmere's were originally quite well-to-do. Maybe he was just trying to keep the Lechmere name out of the press. Maybe he thought that Lechmere sounded a bit foreign?
It's no issue at all for me.

Regards
Michael
Michael Banks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2017, 05:26 PM   #37
Michael Banks
Registered User
 
Michael Banks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: West Midlands, Uk
Posts: 422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
That assumes he was lucky enough to pick them up en route. If, as is frequently the case, streetwalkers hung around the main thoroughfares in order to pick up custom, a serial-killer who patrolled the back-streets wasn't exactly maximising his chances of finding a victim. Indeed, I've argued that Cross's "work-trek" apparently coinciding with some of the murder sites actually militates against his being the Ripper.
Couldn't agree more Sam.

It's such a thin argument just to say that he passed along Hanbury Street. So did lots of people. If 4am was his start time (and most people in menial jobs would start work at the same time every day) then Chapman is out for a start. It's been used for quite a few suspects 'his route to so and so would have taken him past......drum roll......'x' Street! Game over then.

Regards
Michael
Michael Banks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 06:39 AM   #38
Caroline Brown
Author
 
Caroline Brown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Banks View Post
Couldn't agree more Sam.

It's such a thin argument just to say that he passed along Hanbury Street. So did lots of people. If 4am was his start time (and most people in menial jobs would start work at the same time every day) then Chapman is out for a start. It's been used for quite a few suspects 'his route to so and so would have taken him past......drum roll......'x' Street! Game over then.

Regards
Michael
Morning All,

The usual argument goes that CL chose Hanbury Street for his next murder so that the cop-baiting carman Robert Paul might end up under suspicion. I'm not sure a reliable TOD has been established for Chapman, which allows Fish and Ed to speculate accordingly. But if CL had killed Chapman at a later time [risking his long and steady career in the process] Robert Paul would have been out of the frame if he was already at work by then.

Even if Chapman was killed earlier, when CL would still have got to work on time, it could have seriously backfired if Robert Paul had come along when CL was either buttering up Chapman, or coming back through No.29 after butchering her.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen
Caroline Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 07:37 AM   #39
Caroline Brown
Author
 
Caroline Brown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Banks View Post
Hi Caz

Thanks for your thoughts.

I've been debating this for ages with Christer on the Casebook but at the moment I've stepped away because the debate is on the medical evidence and I don't know anywhere near enough to comment usefully.
With me it's a case of that thread galloping away too fast for me to catch up. Real life tends to get in the way. I can only boast an O level in biology so it does me very little good when they bang on about breathing and bleeding times. "What's the bleedin' time?" they ask. "Time for tea and cake" is my answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Banks View Post
I do take your point regarding if Paul had refused to split up except that we know that Paul hadn't seen any more than had CL. If he'd have refused to split up events would have continued as they actually did.
We know that with hindsight, but if CL had killed Nichols he'd have known the ghastly extent of her injuries, even if he couldn't see much for himself in the darkness. But he couldn't have been certain how much Paul could have seen, from his arrival in Buck's Row to when they left together. Paul could have seen anything, from CL pocketing a knife and moving to the middle of the road [assuming CL only did so as a direct result of becoming aware of Paul's approach]; to blood spots on parts of CL he was unable to check for himself - his face for example; to something about the woman that just didn't look right. She was nearly decapitated, after all, so it would have been sheer luck that Paul had no idea, while CL could only have hoped that would be the case after practically forcing him to take a close look at her! How could CL have been certain Paul was not secretly crapping himself, having seen a little too much for comfort? He started off wary, trying to avoid CL and go on his way. So when detained by CL to come and see this woman, he'd have been wise to go along with it and not rock the boat until he could safely extricate himself from the situation after alerting a policeman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Banks View Post
I agree that it might have appeared odd if he didn't use the name Cross from day to day but did at the Inquest. Odd but not incriminating.
Hmmm, but this is precisely what Fish and Ed find incriminating rather than odd. As an innocent witness there was no problem for Cross coming across as 'odd' for taking his late step father's name for one thing only - his involvement in this sordid prostitute murder. Similarly, causing the police 'a little confusion' might have annoyed them somewhat, but it was no hanging offence. Conversely, I can't see why a psychopathic genius like CL the ripper would think it a good move, so early on in his killing career, to do anything that would appear 'odd', or would confuse or annoy the police, in the event they routinely checked him out. He had no right to predict they wouldn't bother.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen
Caroline Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 10:14 AM   #40
Colin Macdonald
Cadoschologist
 
Colin Macdonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 2,119
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Banks View Post

If CL had taken advantage of this obvious head start and walked, or even run, away Paul would have arrived around 30 seconds later. Maybe he'd have thought the body was a tarpaulin and walked on? Maybe he'd have thought it was a body and walked on not wanting to get involved? Maybe he'd have gone over, nudged the body, believed she was dead, then walked on, not wanting to get involved? Maybe he'd have gone for a police officer? By this time CL is 'over the hills and far away.' Scot free.
Regards

Michael
Paul had no intention of stopping and only did so because Cross/Lechmere blocked his path and prevented him from continuing on his way.
__________________
Best Wishes, Colin.

To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Colin Macdonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10 Beta 2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright @ Howard & Nina Brown 2015-2022